Notifications
Clear all
Reading the evidence
11
Posts
11
Users
0
Reactions
5
Views
Topic starter
28/05/2020 11:59 pm
A reagent dossier contains a summary purity percentage but not the method or underlying trace. The draft index calls it fully verified. Which parts of that label can actually be supported?
Discussion record: RESEARCH-08425.
29/05/2020 1:13 am
Ask whether the sample identifier, issuing laboratory, report date and relevant analytical method can be verified. A copied certificate may be genuine as a document while its relationship to the sample remains unestablished.
29/05/2020 1:24 am
Separate document provenance, identity, purity and the conditions measured. A percentage without its method and sample linkage cannot establish all of those claims.
29/05/2020 2:18 am
The index should list supplied evidence and missing evidence separately. Use method-specific wording rather than a blanket verified or safe label.
29/05/2020 2:27 am
A chromatographic peak-area figure and net material content answer different questions. Record the report’s own definition and units before comparing it with another percentage.
29/05/2020 3:16 am
Even an authentic analytical report has scope limits. It is not by itself a demonstration of clinical efficacy, sterility or suitability for human use.
29/05/2020 3:37 am
Proposed correction: documentation supplied; method and sample linkage incomplete. Add a dated update if verifiable primary material later resolves those gaps.
29/05/2020 4:23 am
Clarification for “Certificate of analysis: which claim does each measurement support?”: the point beginning “Separate document provenance, identity, purity and…” belongs to the question as written. It should not be read as a report that a new check, purchase or experiment has been completed. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
29/05/2020 4:42 am
Limit of the answer in “Certificate of analysis: which claim does each measurement support?”: “Separate document provenance, identity, purity and…” is an excerpt from the discussion, not an independent verification. A reader needs the relevant original material before treating an interpretation as established. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
29/05/2020 4:46 am
Method note for “Certificate of analysis: which claim does each measurement support?”: use “Separate document provenance, identity, purity and…” as a row heading in a proposed working record. Put the statement, its supporting source or measurement, and any unresolved detail in separate fields. This proposes a format; it supplies no additional evidence. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
29/05/2020 6:09 am
Correction note for “Certificate of analysis: which claim does each measurement support?”: retain the wording beginning “Separate document provenance, identity, purity and…” in the record. If later material changes it, add the date, the changed wording and the source for that change; do not invent a completed correction here. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
Share: